PFAS model by Manuel Almagro Rivas.
A new approach can help governments and businesses eliminate harmful chemicals from daily use and exposure, according to a paper recently published in Environmental Science & Technology. It’s a simple concept, but a drastic departure from the status quo of chemicals management in the U.S. and Canada.
In the study, the authors advocate for using an “essential use approach” to speed up and more efficiently take harmful chemicals out of the marketplace, especially PFAS. Laboratory Equipment Editor-in-Chief Michelle Taylor recently spoke with study co-author Carol Kwiatkowski, a scientist at the Green Science Policy Institute, to learn more about the approach and how it can benefit public health, the environment, and the economy.
MT: Can you briefly explain how the essential-use approach works?
CK: The essential-use approach is a policy strategy to help governments and businesses reduce production, use, and exposure to hazardous chemicals. It was first introduced in 1987 under the Montreal Protocol to phase out ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons. The basic premise is that uses of chemicals of concern that are not necessary for health, safety, or the functioning of society should be removed from consumer and industrial products. Chemicals of concern include those that are toxic to humans or wildlife, move around readily or do not break down in the environment, accumulate in people, or have other harmful traits.
This paper applies the essential-use approach for managing the whole class of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). In 2020, the EU endorsed this approach in its Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability, calling for phasing out all PFAS and other most harmful chemicals, except for uses that are determined to be essential for society. The approach has also gained traction in some U.S. states for PFAS. In 2021, Maine banned the use of PFAS in all products by 2030, except where the state determines a use is “currently unavoidable.” Other U.S. states are similarly banning the use of PFAS in specific products.
MT: What are the main differences between the essential-use approach and how the U.S. and Canada currently handle chemicals management?
CK: The current chemicals management approach is slow and inefficient, and the degree of proof required to restrict a chemical is incredibly high. Once a potential hazard is identified, it can take decades to complete a risk assessment for a single chemical already the market. Of the tens of thousands of chemicals in use, only a small percentage (excluding pesticides and pharmaceuticals) have undergone thorough risk assessment and even fewer have ever been restricted. Meanwhile, contamination of air, water, and soil as well as the bodies of humans and wildlife continues to grow. The essential-use approach allows the removal of potentially harmful chemicals and large chemical classes for uses that are not essential, or where safer alternatives already exist, or where the function of the chemical is not needed for that use (even without a replacement). It has the potential to remove many unnecessary uses in a much shorter timeframe than our current regulatory system.
MT: Since the essential-use approach rests on the necessity and safety of chemicals, who makes the "this is/is not essential" determination?
CK: Governments and businesses can make essential-use decisions. They may rely on experts to identify in what products chemicals are used, to find safer alternatives, or to advise on health and safety determinations. Ultimately though, the decision rests with the government or business and should not be influenced by stakeholders with vested interests.
MT: What would be the first few steps if a large business was to try to pivot toward an essential-use approach?
CK: The first step is to create an inventory of ingredients used in the company’s products. This is not always easy but by working within supply chains the information can be obtained. Then the chemicals must be screened for hazards. Third-party assessors are often used for chemical hazard assessments. Then the company can ask any of three questions about their harmful or potentially harmful chemicals they use: Is the function necessary for the product? 2) Is the use of the chemical the safest feasible option? 3) Is use of the chemical necessary for health, safety, or the function of society? A no answer on any question means the use is not essential and can be removed. Only uses that return a yes answer to all three questions are essential, and then only until safer alternatives are developed.
While removing chemicals that have health or environmental concerns is not always easy, there are many benefits. Choosing healthier materials protects the environment, customers and employees, and it’s good for business. It can improve market differentiation, avoid brand liability, and support compliance with government regulations. The Green Science Policy Institute’s blog for the business community describes this in more detail.
MT: Timing-wise, how long would it take a large business to switch to/implement the essential-use approach?
CK: It depends on what products the company makes, how far along in the process they are (do they already have a chemical inventory?), how much control they have over their supply chain, and many other factors. One thing I’m sure of is that companies can move faster than governments, so their efforts, which are usually supported by their customers, are incredibly important to the larger goal of ridding the world of harmful chemicals.
MT: What effect, if any, does rising concern over perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances have on the adoptability of the essential-use approach?
CK: Scientists who study environmental pollutants already know that there are countless chemicals of concern in the environment and our bodies. One good thing about PFAS is that they have caught the attention of the world. The PFAS that have been thoroughly studied are hazardous, they don’t break down, and they have spread all over the planet and are in nearly everyone’s body. The larger class of PFAS includes tens of thousands of chemicals for which we have very little information. PFAS have become the poster child for application of the essential-use approach, primarily in Europe, where they are working on implementing the approach already. I am hopeful that this attention will help change chemicals management policy not only for PFAS but for all harmful chemicals.